Glad you like your Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 L IS USM Macro lens - the photo taken with it are great - I was tempted to get that same lens but found a
Canon EF-S Macro USM 60mm lens so cheap I could not pass it up. I think they both are great lens - keep posting as I would love to see the results of that lens. Also what mode are you shooting it in - the instructions on mine suggest AV - (the lens is under the Christmas tree - so I have a few days to wait - but I down loaded the instructions from Canon so I could get a head start.)

errr... before my camera took a swim I had the chance to play with this lens for a few days... loved the results it gave but was a bit worried about focus time when I had the lens set for its max range setting called "full". It seemed at times to take well over a second, if not 2 or a bit more to gain focus when going from extreme closeup to something a few meters away and a few times it even seemed to loose where it was and not gain focus at all after several seconds.

Is this the norm and I should be using the other 2 range settings for faster focusing times to narrow the parameters (as suggested in the manual) or is my lens flawed and even though it may take more time to focus going directly from one extreme to the other it should not be taking as much time as it is?

I am new into the world of macro photography and I am struggling which one to choose between Canon 100mm IS USM Lens and Canon 180mm USM macro. Any advice? I have researched about both, but couldn't find any comparison between this two lens. I would greatly appreciate feedback of those who own one or both of these lens.

Wolfsong, my experience of the Sigma 150 is similar. I believe due to the nature of longer macro lenses, quite a bit of movement is needed to focus close up. Combined with the need for accuracy, the speed is the victim. That is why the focus range limiters are supplied.

Bikorchi, while I own neither, and at the risk of over simplification, the 100 IS seems the better choice if you want to handhold at longer exposures. The 180mm will get you a bit more working distance.

I am new into the world of macro photography and I am struggling which one to choose between Canon 100mm IS USM Lens and Canon 180mm USM macro. Any advice? I have researched about both, but couldn't find any comparison between this two lens. I would greatly appreciate feedback of those who own one or both of these lens.

Thank you

I own the canon 180, which I think is a superb lens. It is hard to work with hand-held, but still usable. Even better with a tripod.

I believe it is Canon's largest black lens. It is not weather sealed like the new 100L though...so if you find yourself in a rain forest, use the 100!

Thank you very much for your advice. Does 180mm give a lot space or just a foot or so? Maybe I should try with both and see which one I will like.

Bikorchi

PS: Thanks to Popo and Woflsong as well.

DP-PARIS wrote:

Bikorchi wrote:

Hi everyone,

I am new into the world of macro photography and I am struggling which one to choose between Canon 100mm IS USM Lens and Canon 180mm USM macro. Any advice? I have researched about both, but couldn't find any comparison between this two lens. I would greatly appreciate feedback of those who own one or both of these lens.

Thank you

I own the canon 180, which I think is a superb lens. It is hard to work with hand-held, but still usable. Even better with a tripod.

I believe it is Canon's largest black lens. It is not weather sealed like the new 100L though...so if you find yourself in a rain forest, use the 100!

It is not weather sealed like the new 100L though...so if you find yourself in a rain forest, use the 100!

this is exactly why I got the 100L.. well not cause of the rain forest but cause I do a lot of outdoor stuff...

thanks for the info popo

I'm not going to help your decision most likely, but i have the non IS 100 and I love is ability to walk around and point at something so close up to see it in macro and then to look up and have a great sharp low aperture lens. Here are the two sides: One: I do find myself wishing I didn't have to get 10" from a bee or less with the hood on. Two: When getting really close to objects, it may seem to be enough light for a 1/160 shutter, but it surprising how quickly macro falls into needed high F's and longer shutters. So I could see this IS really helping here. Three: I love it for an indoor lens with its F2.8 and its super sharp, but indoors I've been using my kit lens w/ IS because I can shoot down to 1/80 or so.

Reading 1/250 with flash, how do you judge it is so efficient? Can you tell a bit more, or show some examples with and without IS on

Oops , I meant efficient for manual focus . At this distance from the subject , about 3-4 inches or so , the depth of field is really shallow , and the IS helps a great deal to obtain a spot-on focus , minimizing the hands shaking .